update - Federal judges receive massive increase in threats and harassment from MAGA assholes
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Just the opposite.
But usually the media give a LOT of cover to Trump.
Here, almost no one is trying to pretend it isn't corrupt and even the defenders were mostly agreeing it looks corrupt.
Precisely.
And it was so easy that even his supporters were refusing to ignore those dots.
How does Maxwell have access to these docs from her lawyer?
Given her charges, why hasn't the lawyer been charged or investigated for withholding evidence?
Consent decrees force schools to desegregate. The Trump administration is striking them down
Plaquemines parish, Louisiana, will not be forced to follow the law for the first time since the 1960s
www.theguardian.com
n late April, the Department of Justice announced that it was ending a decades-long consent decree in Plaquemines parish, Louisiana, in a school district that has been under a desegregation order since the Johnson administration in the 1960s.
The Plaquemines parish desegregation order, one of more than 130 such orders nationwide, was in place to ensure that the school district, which initially refused to integrate, followed the law. Many consent decrees of the era are still in existence because school districts are not in compliance with the law.
Some experts, including former justice department employees, say the change in direction for the department could be worrying.
These orders “provide students with really important protections against discrimination”, said Shaheena Simons, who was the chief of the educational opportunities section of the civil rights division at the justice department for nearly a decade. “They require school districts to continue to actively work to eliminate all the remaining vestiges of the state-mandated segregation system. That means that students have protections in terms of what schools they’re assigned to, in terms of the facilities and equipment in the schools that they attend. They have protection from discrimination in terms of barriers to accessing advanced programs, gifted programs. And it means that a court is there to protect them and to enforce their rights when they’re violated and to ensure that school districts are continuing to actively desegregate.”
The justice department ended the Plaquemines parish desegregation order in an unusual process, one that some fear will be replicated elsewhere. The case was dismissed through a “joint stipulated dismissal”. Previously, courts have followed a specific process for ending similar cases, one in which school districts prove that they are complying with the court orders. That did not happen this time. Instead, the Louisiana state attorney general’s office worked with the justice department in reaching the dismissal.
“I’m not aware of anyone, any case, that has [ended] that way before,” said Deuel Ross, the deputy director of litigation of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF); the LDF was not specifically involved with the Plaquemines parish case. “The government as a plaintiff who represents the American people, the people of that parish, has an obligation to make sure that the district has done everything that it’s supposed to have done to comply with the federal court order in the case before it gets released, and the court itself has its own independent obligation to confirm that there’s no vestiges of discrimination left in the school district that are traceable to either present or past discrimination.”
Despite the district not proving that it is compliant with the order, the justice department has celebrated the end of the consent decree.
“No longer will the Plaquemines Parish School Board have to devote precious local resources over an integration issue that ended two generations ago,” Harmeet K Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the justice department’s civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the decision. “This is a prime example of neglect by past administrations, and we’re now getting America refocused on our bright future.”
But focusing on the age of the case implies that it was obsolete, according to Simons, who is now the senior adviser of programs and strategist at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “The administration is trying to paint these cases as ancient history and no longer relevant.”
In 1966, the Johnson administration sued school districts across the country, particularly in the south, that refused to comply with desegregation demands. At the time, Plaquemines parish was led by Leander Perez, a staunch segregationist and white supremacist.
Perez had played a large role in trying to keep nearby New Orleans from desegregating, and once that effort failed, he invited 1,000 white students from the Ninth Ward to enroll in Plaquemines parish schools. By 1960, nearly 600 had accepted the offer. Perez was excommunicated by Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel for ignoring his warning to stop trying to prevent schools run by the archdiocese of New Orleans from integrating.
Perez attempted to close the public schools in Plaquemines parish, and instead open all-white private academies, or, segregation academies, which became a feature of the post-integration south. An estimated 300 segregation academies, which, as private schools, are not governed by the same rules and regulations as public schools, are still in operation and majority white.
Students and teachers working in school districts today might be decades removed from the people who led the push for desegregation in their districts, but they still benefit from the protections that were long ago put in place. Without court oversight, school districts that were already begrudgingly complying might have no incentive to continue to do so.
According to the Century Foundation, as of 2020, 185 districts and charters consider race and/or socioeconomic status in their student assignment or admissions policies, while 722 districts and charters are subject to a legal desegregation order or voluntary agreement. The justice department currently has about 135 desegregation cases on its docket, the majority of which are in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
“Separate but equal doesn’t work,” said Johnathan Smith, former deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division at the justice department. “The reality is that students of color do better when they are in integrated classrooms … We know that the amount of resources that are devoted to schools are greater when there are a higher number of white students. So to have students attend majority-minority school districts means that they’re going to be shut out, whether that’s from AP classes, whether that’s from extracurricular activities. All the activities that make it possible for students to fully achieve occur when you have more integrated classrooms.”
There was a deal to fix this Alabama community’s raw sewage crisis. Trump tore it up over DEI
Read more
“Public education isn’t just about education for the sake of education,” he added. “It’s about preparing people to be citizens of our democracy and to be fully engaged in our democratic institutions. When you have students that are being shut out from quality public education, the impact is not just on those communities. It’s on our democracy writ large.”
Smith, the current chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law, said that the decision “signals utter contempt for communities of color by the administration, and a lack of awareness of the history of segregation that has plagued our nation’s schools”.
“Even though we are 71 years after the Brown v Board [of Education] decision, schools of this country remain more segregated today than they were back in 1954,” he said. “The fact that the administration is kind of wholeheartedly ending these types of consent decrees is troubling, particularly when they’re not doing the research and investigation to determine whether or not these decrees really should be ended at this point.”
Smith said that the decision in the Plaquemines parish case may be a “slippery slope” in which other school districts begin reaching out to the Trump administration.
“The impact they can have across the country and particularly across the south is pretty huge,” he said. “I worry that we’re going to see more and more of these decrees falling and more and more of these districts remaining segregated without any real opportunity to address that.”
Last edited:
Second Whistleblower Backs Up Claims Emil Bove Told DOJ Lawyers To Defy Court Orders
A second whistleblower and former Justice Department attorney has come forward with evidence that corroborates allegations that Trump’s judicial nominee Emil Bove directed DOJ attorneys to defy court orders and withhold information from judges, according to Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit that helps public and private sector workers report and expose wrongdoing.
This whistleblower has “provided substantive, internal DOJ documents” that back up claims made by former senior DOJ attorney-turned-whistleblower Erez Reuveni, said the group. Last month, Reuveni alleged that Bove, who is currently a senior DOJ official, told staff attorneys to ignore court orders and say “fuck you” to judges who ruled against the department in cases relating to Trump administration’s efforts to deport noncitizens.
“Our client and Mr. Reuveni are true patriots – prioritizing their commitment to democracy over advancing their careers,” Andrew Bakaj, chief legal counsel for Whistleblower Aid, said in a statement.
Whistleblower Aid is not naming its client, but said they have shared their documents with DOJ’s independent Office of the Inspector General.
“What we’re seeing here is something I never thought would be possible on such a wide scale: federal prosecutors appointed by the Trump Administration intentionally presenting dubious if not outright false evidence to a court of jurisdiction in cases that impact a person’s fundamental rights not only under our Constitution, but their natural rights as humans,” Bakaj said.
“What this means is that federal career attorneys who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution are now being pressured to abdicate that promise in favor of fealty to a single person, specifically Donald Trump,” he said. “Loyalty to one individual must never outweigh supporting and protecting the fundamental rights of those living in the United States.”
Bove, 44, is on track to be confirmed next week to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. His credentials for the job are that he was Trump's personal criminal defense attorney and has used his role at DOJ to seek retribution against Trump's perceived political enemies.
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
The states have argued Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.”
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was “thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.”
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history,” he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”
Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”
Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work.
“That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,” the judge wrote. “In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”
Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration “are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” Sorokin wrote. “But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”
The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump’s efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect.
On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president’s executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court’s nationwide block.
A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.
The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
They also argue that Trump’s order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
“These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,” Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement.
Judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
The states have argued Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.”
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was “thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.”
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history,” he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”
Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”
Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work.
“That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,” the judge wrote. “In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”
Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration “are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” Sorokin wrote. “But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”
The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump’s efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect.
On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president’s executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court’s nationwide block.
A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.
The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
They also argue that Trump’s order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
“These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,” Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement.
Judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
WASHINGTON (AP) — A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated.
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held.
In reaching her decision, the judge said the “defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients’ perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat ‘Radical Indoctrination’ and ‘Radical … DEI Programs,’ and to further ‘Biological Truth.’”
One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled “Copy of NEH Active Grants,” the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote.
The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects.
“Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,” McMahon said. “Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.“
McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration.
The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress.
The humanities groups’ lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils “to a screeching halt” this spring when it terminated its grant program.
“The decision is a heartening reminder that courts remain a bastion against government overreach and will step in to protect fundamental rights and liberties when they are blatantly threatened,” Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, said Saturday.
The lawsuit was among several filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations.
McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored “to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.”
The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
Gary Fields, The Associated Press
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held.
In reaching her decision, the judge said the “defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients’ perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat ‘Radical Indoctrination’ and ‘Radical … DEI Programs,’ and to further ‘Biological Truth.’”
One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled “Copy of NEH Active Grants,” the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote.
The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects.
“Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,” McMahon said. “Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.“
McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration.
The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress.
The humanities groups’ lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils “to a screeching halt” this spring when it terminated its grant program.
“The decision is a heartening reminder that courts remain a bastion against government overreach and will step in to protect fundamental rights and liberties when they are blatantly threatened,” Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, said Saturday.
The lawsuit was among several filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations.
McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored “to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.”
The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
Gary Fields, The Associated Press
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
At least half a dozen red states have stripped away some child labor protections, allowing children to work longer hours, or in hazardous jobs, or without parental approval, or without rest breaks. Now, one Fox News host wants children to replace undocumented immigrants who perform often grueling farm work.
Indiana, for example, has eliminated child work permits and is allowing 16 and 17-year olds to perform adult work with no permits—although minors, per federal law, are not permitted to do hazardous work. No break or lunch period is required, “regardless of the number of hours worked in a day,” the Indiana Department of Labor states.
Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has “touted using teenagers as a replacement for the labor of migrants who are in the country illegally,” Newsweek reported in May, but that legislation did not pass.
Arkansas now requires no work permits for children as young as 14. There are specific categories of hazardous work that are not permitted. Employers are not required to give rest breaks to minors, with some exceptions.
READ MORE: Trump Floats Rebate Checks From Tariffs He Claims Consumers Don’t Pay
Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, and West Virginia, have eliminated requirements for work permits, shorter shifts, and rest breaks altogether.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, six states last year weakened child labor protections. For example, in West Virginia, the law expands hazardous work in roofing for 16–17-year-olds.
Now, a Fox News Weekend co-host, Charlie Hurt, wants children to replace undocumented immigrant farm workers, to do what he calls “rewarding” work like picking blueberries.
Hurt on Sunday claimed the government is paying Americans to not work, before he launched into his rant about child workers.
READ MORE: ‘Fix Is in’: Trump Leaves Door Open to Pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, Sparking Outrage
“And when you stop paying people not to work, they have to go out and get jobs,” Hurt exclaimed. “And the first jobs they go out and get are these wonderful, rewarding jobs like picking blueberries. I grew up pulling tobacco. There are wonderful jobs in farming, in construction.”
“All of this that has sort of been handed over to, largely, illegal aliens, allowed into the country to do all this cheap labor. Maybe you pay a little bit more for blueberries to actually have Americans picking the blueberries, but that’s wonderful. Allow children to do it as summer jobs.”
“The idea that your government, that your precious government, doesn’t allow children to work summer jobs in blueberry fields is just mind blowing to me,” Hurt claimed, which is false, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Federal law does not prohibit minors, in some cases as young as 12, from picking blueberries. State laws may vary.
'Rewarding': Fox host wants kids to pick blueberries as red states slash child labor laws
Indiana, for example, has eliminated child work permits and is allowing 16 and 17-year olds to perform adult work with no permits—although minors, per federal law, are not permitted to do hazardous work. No break or lunch period is required, “regardless of the number of hours worked in a day,” the Indiana Department of Labor states.
Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has “touted using teenagers as a replacement for the labor of migrants who are in the country illegally,” Newsweek reported in May, but that legislation did not pass.
Arkansas now requires no work permits for children as young as 14. There are specific categories of hazardous work that are not permitted. Employers are not required to give rest breaks to minors, with some exceptions.
READ MORE: Trump Floats Rebate Checks From Tariffs He Claims Consumers Don’t Pay
Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, and West Virginia, have eliminated requirements for work permits, shorter shifts, and rest breaks altogether.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, six states last year weakened child labor protections. For example, in West Virginia, the law expands hazardous work in roofing for 16–17-year-olds.
Now, a Fox News Weekend co-host, Charlie Hurt, wants children to replace undocumented immigrant farm workers, to do what he calls “rewarding” work like picking blueberries.
Hurt on Sunday claimed the government is paying Americans to not work, before he launched into his rant about child workers.
READ MORE: ‘Fix Is in’: Trump Leaves Door Open to Pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, Sparking Outrage
“And when you stop paying people not to work, they have to go out and get jobs,” Hurt exclaimed. “And the first jobs they go out and get are these wonderful, rewarding jobs like picking blueberries. I grew up pulling tobacco. There are wonderful jobs in farming, in construction.”
“All of this that has sort of been handed over to, largely, illegal aliens, allowed into the country to do all this cheap labor. Maybe you pay a little bit more for blueberries to actually have Americans picking the blueberries, but that’s wonderful. Allow children to do it as summer jobs.”
“The idea that your government, that your precious government, doesn’t allow children to work summer jobs in blueberry fields is just mind blowing to me,” Hurt claimed, which is false, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Federal law does not prohibit minors, in some cases as young as 12, from picking blueberries. State laws may vary.
'Rewarding': Fox host wants kids to pick blueberries as red states slash child labor laws
Thread by @allenanalysis on Thread Reader App
@allenanalysis: 🧵 THREAD: Ghislaine Maxwell just filed a Supreme Court appeal to toss her conviction and her attorney is now publicly calling on Trump to back her. Here’s what’s actually in the filing. 1/ This isn’t...…
threadreaderapp.com
Ghislaine Maxwell reaches out to Trump to support her appeal. She says that the SDNY breached a 2007 non prosecution deal it reached with Epstein, which barred any further charges and prosecutions of Epstein and his co conspirators.
(The big question is why Maxwell didn't raise this appeal years ago when she was first prosecuted. Perhaps because Trump is now going to order the SDNY / DoJ to conceed the appeal and let Maxwell walk. This would be the "big fix" then, in return for Maxwell fingering prominent Dems as Epstein clients and exonerating Trump).
Last edited:
A man in New Jersey has claimed that his upcoming criminal trial would be unconstitutional, while Alina Habba is head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, saying she is “unlawfully” in that role.
An attorney for Julien Giraud Jr., who is facing trial August 4 for drug and firearm-related charges, says the case cannot move forward with Habba in charge because his client has the right to be prosecuted “only by a duly authorized United States Attorney”.
The motion is the first of its kind to challenge Habba’s swift re-appointment to U.S. Attorney after her nomination fell apart.
On Thursday evening, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi intervened after New Jersey’s district court judges attempted to remove Habba from her temporary post in the state earlier in the week.
“Giraud Jr. has a constitutional right to be prosecuted only by a duly authorized United States Attorney. The illegitimacy of Ms. Habba’s appointment undermines Giraud Jr.’s fundamental due process rights,” attorney Thomas Mirigliano, wrote in the legal memorandum filed Sunday.
Mirigliano is asking the court to either withdraw the indictment against his client or prevent Habba, or any assistant U.S. attorney under her authority, from prosecuting the case.
“I got the idea over the weekend because my trial was imminent and I thought it was an important issue that needed to be litigated,” Mirigliano told POLITICO.
Giraud Jr. is facing two charges, possession and intent to distribute cocaine and fentanyl as well as possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He has pleaded not guilty to both
Habba, who served as President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, was named Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in March, a position that she could only hold for 120 days without Senate confirmation.
As her expiration date approached, and with no Senate confirmation hearing in sight, the state’s judges took matters into their own hands on July 22 and selected First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Desiree Grace, to replace Habba.
But the administration swooped in and carried out a legal maneuver that will ultimately allow Habba to remain. Bondi fired Grace while Trump rescinded Habba’s nomination and instead named her Acting U.S. Attorney.
Under that statute, Habba can remain in charge of the New Jersey attorney’s office for at least 210 days.
The Independent has asked the White House for comment.
Giraud Jr’s motion, initially filed with the federal judge overseeing his case in New Jersey, is being handled by a federal judge in Pennsylvania.
Habba represented Trump at his New York fraud trial and New York defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll. Trump lost both cases.
Chaos over Alina Habba’s status at the NJ attorney’s office even has defendants confused
An attorney for Julien Giraud Jr., who is facing trial August 4 for drug and firearm-related charges, says the case cannot move forward with Habba in charge because his client has the right to be prosecuted “only by a duly authorized United States Attorney”.
The motion is the first of its kind to challenge Habba’s swift re-appointment to U.S. Attorney after her nomination fell apart.
On Thursday evening, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi intervened after New Jersey’s district court judges attempted to remove Habba from her temporary post in the state earlier in the week.
“Giraud Jr. has a constitutional right to be prosecuted only by a duly authorized United States Attorney. The illegitimacy of Ms. Habba’s appointment undermines Giraud Jr.’s fundamental due process rights,” attorney Thomas Mirigliano, wrote in the legal memorandum filed Sunday.
Mirigliano is asking the court to either withdraw the indictment against his client or prevent Habba, or any assistant U.S. attorney under her authority, from prosecuting the case.
“I got the idea over the weekend because my trial was imminent and I thought it was an important issue that needed to be litigated,” Mirigliano told POLITICO.
Giraud Jr. is facing two charges, possession and intent to distribute cocaine and fentanyl as well as possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He has pleaded not guilty to both
Habba, who served as President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, was named Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in March, a position that she could only hold for 120 days without Senate confirmation.
As her expiration date approached, and with no Senate confirmation hearing in sight, the state’s judges took matters into their own hands on July 22 and selected First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Desiree Grace, to replace Habba.
But the administration swooped in and carried out a legal maneuver that will ultimately allow Habba to remain. Bondi fired Grace while Trump rescinded Habba’s nomination and instead named her Acting U.S. Attorney.
Under that statute, Habba can remain in charge of the New Jersey attorney’s office for at least 210 days.
The Independent has asked the White House for comment.
Giraud Jr’s motion, initially filed with the federal judge overseeing his case in New Jersey, is being handled by a federal judge in Pennsylvania.
Habba represented Trump at his New York fraud trial and New York defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll. Trump lost both cases.
Chaos over Alina Habba’s status at the NJ attorney’s office even has defendants confused
